Subject:
|
Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 6 Dec 1999 11:44:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1069 times
|
| |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 17:35:08 GMT, "Christopher Lannan"
<shakguy@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I agree. And anyway, after you decide you're going to "hold them to it" and
> they say "no" it is no longer an ethical question, but a legal one, and here
> in the States (and it seems in the UK too) the law sides with the "give it
> back" side. Folks over here always talk about "false advertising" when they
> can't get a product at an advertised price, but this is not false advertising,
> as advertised prices are an "invitation to negotiate" or something like that,
> in legal speak. "false advertising" refers to making claims about a product
> that are untrue. As stated earlier in this thread, businesses do get in
> trouble when it can be shown that they do this a lot and its beginning to look
> like it's not a mistake.
ie. "bait'n'switch". It seems to be extremely common with camera
shops, and it _can_ get you into trouble - but it takes a lot. And one
obviously misentered price doesn't cut it.
Same with a $"3.00" Rolex - a "reasonable man" can know that that was
supposed to be $300.
Jasper
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
| (...) I agree. And anyway, after you decide you're going to "hold them to it" and they say "no" it is no longer an ethical question, but a legal one, and here in the States (and it seems in the UK too) the law sides with the "give it back" side. (...) (25 years ago, 30-Nov-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
163 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
